Trade-offs of Growth

The question of whether or not economic growth should be central to international economic policies is a flawed one, I believe. Economic growth is inherently the main driving factor behind economic policy, and always will be, because growth is the reason for the policies in the first place. The distinction is instead made between focusing on pure economic growth at all costs vs. economic growth as a side effect of a larger socio-economic improvement. This argument of mine can be reflected in what we went over in class, essentially the difference between neoclassicalism and multidimensionalism. The former was the nexus designed almost entirely around the idea of GDP growth, while the latter still used economic growth/decline as the standard measure of economic success and guideline of policy, but still had a strong emphasis on social policies and a wholesome approach. I think this multidimensionalism is ideal in terms of international economic policy.

Something else to keep in mind when thinking about economics internationally is that policy is much harder to enact multilaterally to make a concrete social difference on global issues than simply ratifying domestic economic regulations or issuing executive orders. Since silly things like sovereignty exist in which several entities with different circumstances, resources and abilities must come together to implement solutions (usually), there has to be a central driver of policy that can at least in some ways ensure a collective good. The identity of international cooperation forces economic growth to be central to policy in technicality, even if socio-economic issues are approached more holistically by individual countries, NGOs or other supranational organizations.

A duck and a pigeon walk into a bar

A duck and a pigeon walk into a bar. They both want drinks after a long day working the streets only to discover that the bar has no liquid left due to unspecified issues with a delivery. Desperate to fix the situation, the duck waddles over to the stressed out manager and pulls out a wad of cash. He and the manager then ponder over the best way to use the cash in order to increase the presence of drinks at the bar. Meanwhile, the pigeon struts over to the psychologist’s office where he learns how to carry his stress in a healthier manner than resorting to drinks. He then flies back over to the bar to pass his newfound coping mechanisms to the duck and the bar manager. The manager, who was really just overwhelmed about the stresses of being a first-time business owner, than uses the coping mechanism and the cash in conjunction with each other to establish his business and make sure there was never a drink shortage ever again.  

Okay, so yeah, my story could probably use some work. Nevertheless, let’s see what we can glean from this wonderful piece of literature. In the end, the original problem of the lack of drinks was solved. How it was solved came from a two-pronged approach: one focused on money and one focused a broader issue. It is important to ask oneself if you believe the problem could have been solved by one or the other or if both were necessary.  

In my opinion, for the longest lasting success, both were necessary. Now I promise this isn’t completely random. Concerning economic policy, growth has most traditionally been emphasized under the logic that if there is general ‘growth,’ then other issues such as poverty will be solved. As time went on, different theories were developed on how to achieve growth versus or in conjunction with solving other social problems. Relating back to the story, let’s say that the duck with the money represents economic policy based on the idea of general economic growth while the pigeon and the psychologist represents someone focused more specifically on the social issue. I believe that a focus on economic growth and a focus on social issues like poverty alleviation is not mutually exclusive but rather go hand-in-hand. In my rudimentary understanding of the various forms of economic policies employed after WWII, these policies seem to recognize that idea which is showcased in their philosophy of the role of the government. Now in my personal opinion, I believe that if one is to focus first on the social issues, economic growth will inevitably occur. In contrast, a focus purely on economic growth does not necessarily lead to the alleviation of social issues (This is partly exemplified by the fact our standard for economic growth, GDP, doesn’t even account for the distribution of that wealth), yet economic growth will always be held back in the end by those social issues.   

Second 25   

Why are Economics and Ethics Rarely Paired Together?

Often in terms of our global exchange and distribution, money is used in a trickle down economy. With this, money is given to the rich and upper percent, and then is expected to be naturally distributed by them through donations and investments into the economy and the middle and lower classes. This idea believes that eventually economic equilibrium will be reached by providing those with access and opportunity more funds to have “trickle down”. This theory includes lowering the taxes of the elite whereas its contender of supply-side economics involves lowering taxes overall and decreasing regulation to stimulate growth. Like many, I see many problems with this ideology, however I do not see how its opposing theory, Keynesian or demand-side economics to be superior. With Keynesian economics, there is the expectation that giving money to those in the lower classes directly through government funding would inspire them to purchase goods and services that would not of before, this would stimulate the economy by adding more money into the circulation. However, many problems arise with this ideology since oftentimes those in the lower classes prefer to save their money and not spend all of what is provided to them.

The World Bank and other financial institutions coming out of the second world war, were formulated to deal with finances with a more humanitarian perspective. The funds were used for aid instead of corporate investment. I believe that international economic policies should continue being based on economic growth, however with more trends similar to the Marshall plan and the original incentives of these institutions. I do believe that the concept of continued economic growth is necessary to be the primary goal of international economics as it keeps policies on the upward trend to keep interest rates low by continuing trade, having an open market, promoting a cyclical rise in demand as well as output and employment to maintain expansionary policies.

However, I do believe that there should be greater regulations as to when economic growth should be morally or ethically suppressed due to the human rights issues impacted. For instance, countries like North Korea and Eritrea are leading with the world’s highest rates of modern day slavery with their population. Here, individuals are underpaid, overworked, and unable to battle for rights. Their work stimulates the economy by increasing production, GDP, employment, and trade, but it is at the expense of individuals rights and lives. These countries and many others can maintain this unethical labor source due to the consistency of consumption and economic growth from lowering prices. It is in these situations that I believe international economics should have a continued focus on growth in a morally and ethically sound way. With this increase of regulation and production monitoring, there would ideally be more imitation of the original incentives of the World Bank to provide aid on local levels to be distributed and create a cycle of growth within that economy. With there being more regulation, demand and supply would likely be impacted, in demand decreasing as prices rose and supply lowering with the requirement for a livable minimum wage. The economy would need to combat these changes by continuing to focus on fiscal and monetary changes that would keep the economy growing ethically.

Sports: A Constructivist Take -- Week 10

This past week I was downtown with some other global scholars watching the Washington Nationals win an amazing World Series Game 7 victory when I realized that, despite the hype around me as a new DC resident, I didn't really have any kind of investment in the team. Others voiced their doubts as well, "all these college students cheering are fake fans", "guys we aren't really from here", "its not our team". After the initial hype died down, I began to wrestle with these ideas of having some sort of "loyalty" or "responsibility" to a certain sports team. I knew that I had always liked when teams from Cleveland won or were successful, but why?

My first train of thought was that the reason I enjoyed seeing my local teams win wasn't the actual win, but rather the joy and excitement of the people around me. There's a victorious atmosphere that everyone has when a team that everyone is interested in does well. To some degree, the pride that people have feels like an air of superiority or even accomplishment. It astonishes me that us sports fans take so much credit for a win or for a consistently good franchisee just because we like the team or live in the city that the team plays in. "Why is this?", I asked myself. The answer I found wasn't simple, but describing it as a sort of constructivism helped me express my ideas.

If we zoom way out and just talk about the phenomenon of sports culture in general, we see something quite strange: masses of people paying in mass amounts to watch or celebrate other people who wear colorful outfits that correspond to geographical locations because of their talent in running around and competing in accomplishing various tasks. What is the significance of a team or a number on a jersey or a mascot? Its all based on the value we as a society decide it should have. Since sports and other athletic competitions have been such a prominent form of entertainment for centuries, the culture developed around them hasn't really been questioned. There is no intrinsic value in sports, but the enjoyment we get out of watching them and cheering for teams/players enables people to engage in festivities together, unite over a common goal (or enemy), and argue/discuss our opinions freely. In a way, we use sports as a social outlet of sorts.

The next thing I began to contemplate was the idea of being a "good" fan or a "real" fan. People who jump onto successful teams are usually called out for being "bandwagon" fans, since they've either never really stuck through a rough patch in a teams history. On the other hand, what about fans who root for teams that they have a legitimate connection to, but whose teams have been consistently good (Patriots fans, Warriors fans, etc). My thought, being a Cleveland sports fan myself, was that it definitely takes more heart and loyalty to keep rooting for an awful team than a successful one. So why do fans of successful teams get so much more "credit" than fans of bad ones? Did they really contribute to their teams success in any way?

Don't get me wrong, I'm quite happy the Nationals won, especially since I do feel some type of connection to DC sports teams now that I spend so much of my time here (and plan to do so for at least three years while in school). However, I'm still a proud fan of Cleveland sports teams back home and Israelis soccer teams abroad, because those are the teams I have my own connections to. So, I guess my point is that sports should be enjoyable and fun to watch and follow, but also should be something people devote loyalty to if they choose. In the end, the competition, the excitement, the heartbreak, the whole experience, is an entertainment medium that has blown up into a large part of the identity and daily lives of most of America (and even the world).

Reflection Week #10

My body is basically falling apart at this point. Last week I had to go to the ER for my ear, and this week I had a fever and now a pretty bad cough.

There is really nothing worse than being debilitatingly sick in college. Over the course of my fever, pretty much all I did was lay in bed. I did minimal work and spent most of my time watching Designated Survivor, listening to music, and resting. I haven't had a fever in a while so I was definitely considered very sick by my standards. Even though I wasn't doing much and didn't really need "help," I think I was missing someone else taking care of me and having basically all the responsibility of making the decisions of what medicines I was going to take or if I was going to go see the doctor. My roommate Nadia did "mother me" in some aspects, but it wasn't the same and I didn't really realize how much stress I had been under until I got home on Thursday and my dad started taking care of me. It really is something we take for granted when we live at home.

Over the weekend, we did go to New York City for my great aunt's annual Diwali party. My dad wasn't so sure we should go, but I insisted because I wanted to see friends and family. We weren't there for long at all but it was nice to see friends I hadn't seen in years, and family I hadn't seen in months. It helps to remind me I have such a strong support system, even if I'm not physically with everyone who's a part of it. Something that I've found interesting is that since I've been in college, my ideas of home are becoming muddled between Takoma Park and New York City. I find myself briefly mixing up where memories took place or where things are located in relation to each other. I'm not sure if this is because I'm developing a new home on campus and so my other two primary homes are becoming less defined, or if this is some memory thing in my brain that is becoming muddled, but I definitely want to look into it more.

I only went to my classes two days this week because of my sickness, but something that I realized was how much I actually like small group discussions. I've always known I preferred them, but on Monday I recognized that the reason I like them so much is because I feel less stressed because I can bare my thoughts to a small group of people and then refine them more. I definitely think it's good to know what my stress triggers are so that I can know how to deal with them better in the future, and now I can recognize that large group discussions are because I'm not confident in my preliminary thoughts.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I have such a bad cough and really hope it goes away soon so that I can catch up in all my classes, but that remains to be seen. Here's to hoping my health at least somewhat improves!

World Champs !

Going to watch the 7th game of the World Series in a sports restaurant with my friends was one of the highlights of my week. The pure joy and energy of the city all celebrating was truly invigorating and I have never experienced something like that, with the streets filled and everyone going insane for the Nationals. Getting to attend the parade was also something that showed just how unifying sports teams could be in getting everyone involved and excited. 

However, like some, or maybe like none, when we were stuck in a crowd of people around the stadium, I had a fleeting thought of what I would do if someone opened fire or if there was a terrorist attack. This mindset is something that I have grown accustomed to. Whenever I go into a new room or am in a crowd, I immediately try to figure out what my escape route would be or an item I could hide behind. My high school was right next to a police station but I remained worried because the accessories to machine guns can hit many people and cause much damage in under 7 seconds. 

I found it interesting to read the article using a comparison of deaths from bathtubs and terrorist attacks to show reasons why national security is focused largely on terrorism despite the low death count that comes as a result. People fear the unknown, they fear death and their future and things that are not yet determined in the present. I relate greatly to this fear of the unknown and attribute this “phobia” as one of the roots in my obsessions and constantly trying to plan things out perfectly. Terrorism is something that hits all of these unknown fears- it deeply connects to the fear of death and the uncertainty of when/how that will come. This topic of terrorism is something I look forward to discussing more in class. 

On another note, I greatly enjoyed our discussion on media in class on Halloween. During the first week of our blog posts, I attempted to explain why I thought the media was the most pressing issue in the world today. I find it extremely interesting how corporations are monopolizing the media being sent to the major news outlets. Off of this, the only variation than between these news sources is their rhetoric and the ways the news is presented to get readers. I am following Brexit from one news source for another one of my classes and have been interested to see how it will swing the argument in different ways compared to other media outlets my peers are using. When we tour Foreign Policy magazine on Wednesday, I will be interested to see how they collect their global news!

Reflection 8: Eye-Opening Visitations

This past week I attended my first Dr. Appointment here in D.C.. Doctor visits have always been a point of anxiety for me, but this time I was quite interested in the experience because the appointment I scheduled was at a location in Ward 7. I chose this location because most of the close locations did not have the availability I was looking for. It was my first time visiting Ward 7, and all I had were accounts of negative encounters or stigmas  attached to low income areas here in D.C.. The commute took a little longer than I was used to, and as soon as I arrived to the Minnesota Ave metro station, the atmosphere shifted. Where was I? It looked nothing like the NW sophisticated D.C I was use to. It was a culture shock similar to my hometown, and the area was painted with melanated hues of colorful people. The community was urban, and the mentality was different. As I walked down the street, I heard the urban Ebonics dialect being uttered from the mouths of children and teens passing by. I observed drug addicts struggling to carry their high down the pavements, and young girls with child. In the midst of this cultural shift, I felt a sense of belonging because there were so many people who looked like me, and I didn’t face any problems because I am aware of how to code-switch and carry myself in this kind of environment. 

Visiting Ward 7, and observing the lack of community resources like grocery stores really made me think about the impact the opportunity gap has on this community. The lack of grocery stores explains the reason why the community health is suffering.  The levels of diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and issues with cholesterol is higher in these communities. When I went to my Doctor in this area the quality of the facility was also sub-par due to the lack of funding. The community also has a high HIV rate, which is related to the lack of access to quality sex education. For communities like Ward 7 to change, it will require policies and funded projects that would contribute to the betterment and the building up the Ward 7 community. The lack of resources and funding of this community only contributes to the impoverished mentality and makes the members of the community feel that the government does not care about their situations. I hope something can be done to shift the situation in Ward 7.